November 3, 2011

With Perry having slumped in the polls, however, and Romney the more likely nominee, the odds tilt slightly toward Obama joining the list of one-termers. It is early, and almost no matter what, the election will be a losable one for Republicans. But Obama’s position is tenuous enough that it might not be a winnable one for him.

Unfortunately it ain't over till the fat lady sings. A year is a long time in politics. Odds are he won't win based on the current situation but unfortunately that isn't a certainty. On the other hand Obama might get the worst of all, a win and wind up with a veto proof congress that will spend 4 years investigating him. It will make for great TV as the Administration goes on a perp walk as each indictment comes down.

The real determinant will be the economy and the very real possibility things will look a lot worse a year from now. Add to that whatever fallout comes from Egypt, Libya (especially), the PIIGS, possible Red Chinese meltdown, and Iran.

"I have estimated extremism scores for this year’s Republican candidates by combining data from the three principal objective methods that are used to estimate ideology, one based on Congressional voting, one based on fund-raising contributions and the other based on voters’ assessments of the candidates’ ideology in polls."

So how did he determine Romney's score, when he has no Congressional record?

Anyway, the article seems to assume that if the challenger matters at all (i.e. if the deciding factor isn't just the incumbent's record), then all that matters about the challenger is ideology. All of the plausible Republican nominees are quite conservative, but they would have very different chances of beating Obama based on more intangible factors like personality, charisma, and debating skills.

How stupid do you have to be to develop your nuclear program in bomb targets? Your opponents main strength is air power. You build multiple dummy sites along with the intelligence effort to make each one appear "genuine" and put the real deal in seclusion under a mountain somewhere. I hear they have plenty to pick from.

Romney is the only candidate right now with even the slightest possibility of beating Obama. The latest state polls have him soundly beating everyone, especially in PA, OH, FL, and even NC. Romney is ahead in NC and tied in FL. The rest are well behind.

Unless the GOP pulls someone better out of their ass, the nominee will have to be Romney if they want a shot of winning.

Out of all of Nate Silvers factors in determining who will win, most importantly in my opinion, is the ideology of the opponent. Romney continues to be the least of the evils in the Republican lineup to me as a liberal and most moderates I suspect.

The shift of the Republican party so far to the right will ensure their loss. If they nominate one of the far right candidates, I suspect their chances of winning are toast.

Romney is their man, if they can get past their love affair with the extreme far right.

How stupid do you have to be to develop your nuclear program in bomb targets? Your opponents main strength is air power. You build multiple dummy sites along with the intelligence effort to make each one appear "genuine" and put the real deal in seclusion under a mountain somewhere. I hear they have plenty to pick from.

Yep. The Iranians have spread things over more than a thousand sites, many of them hardened bunkers.

Best case, the Israelis can slow things down for a few months. The calculation they're trying to make now is whether or not that's worth the diplomatic price they'll pay for an attack.

Allie's Apple said...Out of all of Nate Silvers factors in determining who will win, most importantly in my opinion, is the ideology of the opponent. Romney continues to be the least of the evils in the Republican lineup to me as a liberal and most moderates I suspect.

The shift of the Republican party so far to the right will ensure their loss. If they nominate one of the far right candidates, I suspect their chances of winning are toast.

Romney is their man, if they can get past their love affair with the extreme far right.

11/3/11 1:10 PM

The republican party hasn't gotten far right, whatever that means. Smaller and more limited government are traditional American norms. Of course anyone advocating a return to basics looks extreme to the extreme left. In March we will know who the republican nominee will be. The democrats want Romney, they know they are going to loose. They figure with Romney the chances of a major rollback of the FDR-LBJ and Obama progressive state would much reduced. That is the real reason they want to pick Romney as the republican candidate. They may even be right about that. Still even Romney is infinitely better than Obama, especially if he has to deal with a strong TEA Party congress.

I enjoy the assumption inherent in your post that the Democrats have not moved to the left.

But let's examine your claim that Republicans have moved to the right. Please tell me which major position of theirs has shifted in in the past 30 years?

The only thing you could possibly claim is that they have become more outspoke on the issue of entitlement reform. But given that such programs are currently bankrupting our nation, it can hardly be ignored.

Christopher, one big issue for me is the constant barrage of bills that have been pushed through the House regarding abortion. It also is disturbing to see the escalation of the religious rights influence in the R party.

Also the fanatic adherence to Grover Norquist and the signing of his pledge regarding taxes.

The escalation of the push to privatize everything, even schools and especially SS .

Yes, Obama is toast. I've been looking for ways, and have found some, to put skin in this game. There must be a way we can do it here in the Althouse comment gallery.

The stakes: if you win, you get to gloat as usual. If you lose, you must post, within 24 hours of CBS, NBC, and ABC announcing the winner (in case of a Bush v. Gore situation) the following comment: "I was so wrong that I think nobody should bother reading my comments after this one. I am an idiot whose opinions on electoral matters should be ignored-- nay, shunned. Look away; do not amplify my shame."

Romney is the only one with a chance and he will most likely be your nominee. But most anyone who follows politics already knows this.

Any other candidate - among the group now running for the GOP nomination - would lose significantly. Why? Because by and large most American voters are moderates who slide a little left or a little right every few years - but never all the way right or left.

The thing to keep in mind though about Obama is that he is likely going to be able to outspend his Republican challenger 2-1 again. That may not be sufficient, but will be a factor.

Keep in mind that prior to Obama for the last numer of Presidential elections, the candidates spent essentially the same on both sides, through federal matching funds. Last election, Obama opted out of federal funding, turned off credit card verification, and spent far more than his much more ethical opponent.

Of course, some, if not most, of those additional contributions were illegal, coming from labor unions, foreigners, etc. But with the win came the Department of Justice, which, not surprisingly, showed no interest in tracking down who made all these, likely illegal, contributions.

-Abortion The right has consistently opposed the on demand abortion championed by the left since Roe v. Wade (the degree to which they want restrictions varies). Given the current administration's attempts to weaken or circumvent restrictions on abortion funding it is hardly shocking that they would take action.

-Religion Please tell me how this has changed. Are you arguing that religious concerns were not prevalent in previous decade; or that only Republicans use religion for political gain. If it's the former then that is BS, as anyone who can remember the Civil Rights movement can tell you. If it's the latter then I would point out that within the past 3 years I've been told by Democrats numerous times that Jesus would want us to pass major social programs. Why do they get a break, but the Reps. don't?

-TaxesRepublicans have opposed major taxes increases for a long time, so that hardly signals a shift to the right.

But let's look at your statement by itself. Why should taxes be increased? If you want more spending then there will naturally be a conflict with those who oppose bigger govt. (i.e. most republicans). If your point is that we must pay down the debt I would point out that federal govt. spending is currently over 20% of our GDP, a rate which has only been matched by spending in WW2. By all indications the govt. doesn't appear serious about bringing that number down. Why should taxes be increased when there has been no indication that the govt. is going to spend them wisely.

-PrivatizationThe push for vouchers and other such programs is hardly new. But lets assume that it is. In regards to school, the failures of our education system are too obvious to ignore. Private schools regularly do better than public schools with far fewer resources. I would also point out that one of the Democrat's most loyal constituencies (black voters) is overwhelmingly in favor of school vouchers and privatization so this is hardly a partisan issue (unless your political party happens to be a slave to teachers unions).

In regards to Social Security, aside from pointing out that it is unsustainable in its current form, I would point out that nobody wished to privatize it. The plan under Bush would have instituted a system similar to that of Chile (a country that gets a far better return than our system).

-Medicare Getting rid of Medicare? Really? The Democrats just cut a massive amount of funding for it in order to try and hide the true costs of ObamaCare and yet you attack the Reps. as wanting to destroy it?.

Hypocrisy aside, while the program is currently hideously expensive and bankrupting this nation no major Republican is seriously talking about getting rid of Medicare. They are discussing reforms which will cut some services, but given that the current system is unsustainable that is pretty much required.

So basically all of your points are either long term staples of Republican and conservative practice/belief, are non-partisan, or are necessary given the unsustainable nature of major govt. programs. Yeah, that's quite a rightward shift there.

Christopher I am not alone in the the belief that there has been a significant shift to the right of the R Party, I'm sure you don't agree that is has indeed shifted , but I guess we will have to see if any of the candidates other than Romney can win against Obama.

So Garage, one year out: What's your prediction (it can't be milqutoast like Nate Silver).

Romney-Obama. Toss up. If I had to pick, probably Obama, by winning Ohio due to the unpoularity there of Kasich/union busting. The voter suppression bills around the country will definitely help R's though.

The GOP didn't shift right inasmuch as the Democrats went full bore socialist.

If anything, the GOP is moving away from hardcore Evangelicals. In my thinking, at least, it doesn't matter why you want a given set of laws or controls over the liberties of the citizenry. Any increase in laws is a move to the left. Thus, Evangelical-based laws like dry counties, blue laws, no dancing (lol), are moves to the left, not the hardcore right.

You move from absolute tyranny on the extreme left to absolute anarchy on the extreme right.

I've told this story before, but it bears repeating. I have two co-workers, both M.D.s One from New Zealand and one from Canada, both of whom have become U.S. citizens. They are both appalled that you can walk into the polls and vote with no I.D. required.

I've told this story before, but it bears repeating. I have two co-workers, both M.D.s One from New Zealand and one from Canada, both of whom have become U.S. citizens. They are both appalled that you can walk into the polls and vote with no I.D. required.

That was a pretty well-done analysis by Nate Sliver. The things I enjoyed were:

(1)The differing economic condition in Nov 2012 scenarios with Romney or Perry as the two credible long haul candidates vs. Obama in 4 different conditions..showing Perry losing. Showing Romney walking away with a win in a bad economy and "close" in an improving but still bad economy. But Obama is now close to Romney and leads Cain (pre-blowup) by 8 points, Perry by 11, Bachmann by 14, and would beat Palin by 26 - so the conservative belief that "anyone" can beat an incumbent President, even Obama, is wrong.

2. Use of extremism quotients - voters in the middle, moderates&independents, will go against a candidate with an "extremism" score above 60. They will forgive a few extremist Left or Right positions, but not a mostly across the board Leftist of rightwinger ideologue. Huntsman is at 40, Romney 49, and all the other candidates above 60 (Cain is at 60 last week).

3. InTrade is now thought to be the best indicator out there of electability, predicting correctly each election in all 50 states in 2008, 2010.InTrade has Romney the predicted Republican nominee by 71%.InTrade has Obama at 48-50% likelihood at present to win the election.

Scott M, yes I did misunderstand who you were directing your comment about Max Black to, I thought it was myself and Christopher regarding the our discussion of the right moving further to the right and someone elses assertion that , no it was the lefts shifting toward socialism ,that was the true shift .

no it was the lefts shifting toward socialism ,that was the true shift

I would agree with that and Original Mike's assertion about the extremists re voter ID. While the shift to the left is huge for the Democrats, what I was trying to say was that there has been a similar shift in the GOP away from the Evangelicals. However, that shouldn't be interpreted as a shift to the left, however small, for the GOP because I don't believe Evangelicals and their readiness to use government to control moral issues are any better than socialists.

Original Mike, perhaps you are right, maybe both parties moving even further toward their polar opposites has been extreme. maybe we all need to move back toward the center again and hope that bipartisanship can get our government out of the doldrums.

cubanbob - " Still even Romney is infinitely better than Obama, especially if he has to deal with a strong TEA Party congress."

Even with Obama running in a still-bad economy, it will be far closer than far right conservatives think. Like many liberals cocooned in their own media and cultural bubbles - many conservatives cannot imagine others thinking differently than them. They love Cain as a true believer, forgive him all his flaws, and connot imagine other sectors of society do not hate Obama as much as they do.

While the Tea Party had big successes with all the anger about Obamacare and Pelosi's other agenda - they lost critical elections from running unqualified zealots whose only allure was they passed all the rightwing litmus tests. And forgetting that up to 40% of Tea Party members are not Republicans, but came from the very angry independents and blue democrat portion of the population...who don't care about RINO-calling at all. So the Tea Party hopefully has learned that electability matters and they may have to go with a candidate that has non-RINO ideas, does not think new wars are great things to do..

"Original Mike, perhaps you are right, maybe both parties moving even further toward their polar opposites has been extreme."

I don't agree that the GOP has become more extreme. Now, I think to really analyze the situation you need to look at specific issues and characterize each one separately. Regarding SS and MediCare, for example, the status quo can not continue. Virtually everyone except certain politicians agrees with that. Ergo, IMO, the party that argues for no change are the extremists.

Fraud and waste, while a problem, don't account for nearly enough to fix the program.

Price ceiling cause shortages (look at the gas lines in the 70's). Unless I'm reading this incorrectly and you mean it will only cover medical costs up to a particular amount.

In regards to raising taxes, that issue has been argued so much there is really no reason to rehash all that has been said.

And as for means testing for SS, I'm all for it. However we could avoid that somewhat by allowing for methods of saving which earn more interest than currently occurs (given that it is essentially nothing, this shouldn't be too hard).

"As for Medicare,Fraud and waste, we can do so much better, reign it in."

Small potatoes, but fine.

"Put caps on medical costs charged by healthcare providers."

Allie, I have cancer. Perhaps you've seen in the news lately the shortage of certain drugs, including one of the ones I'll need someday. The Bush administration put price controls on it, and now the manufacturers aren't producing enough because it loses them money. Price controls on health care kills people.

"Raise the premium on everyone according to ability to pay."

I'm all for that (that's a conservative proposal, by the way), but it must be done in conjunction with giving people more control (not less) of the health care that they are paying for.

"As for SS, means testing for starters."

Several Republicans have proposed that, including Pres. Bush and John McCain. Means testing is an anathama to liberals, because they believe it will erode popular support of the system.

The fact of the matter is that both of these systems need reform, and serious people have put serious proposals on the table. You do not further the cause of change by using words like "privatize" SS or especially "eradicate" Medicare. Those are words you have picked up from extremist politicians who's intent is to scare people, for their own political careers.

Why must we allow healthcare providers and big Pharma to get away with runaway costs though? Do they not deserve some legislated constraints? How can we prevent them from creating shortages of necessary drugs and treatments?

Why must we allow healthcare providers and big Pharma to get away with runaway costs though? Do they not deserve some legislated constraints? How can we prevent them from creating shortages of necessary drugs and treatments?

How can we prevent them from creating shortages of necessary drugs and treatments?

It's an old argument that doesn't ever seem to go away, but err on the side of common sense and allow health insurance to be sold like car, home and life across state lines. Competition will drive the prices down.

Further, remove all of the myriad of completely unnecessary regulations that Obamacare are instituting that is putting the kibosh on my HSA. Personally, once we get costs under control by opening up the insurance market, HSA's are the better bet for the vast majority of people in this country. The very poor, the infirm and the elderly will always need a cushion, but the rest of us should be able to handle our own affairs like adults. We should be treated that way by our government.

"Why must we allow healthcare providers and big Pharma to get away with runaway costs though? Do they not deserve some legislated constraints? How can we prevent them from creating shortages of necessary drugs and treatments?"

You'll go all liberal on me on this one. The answer to your question is competition. Allow them to make a profit. If there's a profit to be had, more than one provider will appear, and competition will keep the price down. (note: "down" does not mean "free").

HSAs are a great way to keep costs down, Allie. ObamaCare makes them illegal. (Right about now, garage will come in and claim it doesn't, but he's arguing a technicality; HSAs will disappear under ObamaCare).

Didn't know you were on a trust fund. Sweet! I hear they get favorable treatment in south Dakota. You should totally talk to Democratic Governor Mark Dayton about how to take advantage of SD's favorable tax laws, without any political fallout.

Calypso, my lake house cost less than that back when my late husband and I bought it, but then with the real estate bubble it has gone up in value, and luckily hasn't come down thatmmuch, simply because it's lake property.

Garage is right, if we all opt out of the Social Contract, what would happen?Some things trump personal liberty, IMO.

What exactly do you mean by "opt out of the Social Contract"? Run around naked? Drive on the wrong side of the street? Shoplift? Take eleven items into the express lane? Opting out of the Social Contract could cover a lot of ground.

I going to say this ONCE garage (mainly for Allie's benefit) because we've been over this countless times. The SS Trust Fund contains BONDS. In order to cash them in in order to send money to SS receipants, they have to sell the bonds to the U.S. Treasury. The Treasury needs money to buy them. They get that money either from, i) new, general fund tax dollars, or ii) by selling a new bond (i.e. borrowing).

The original SS surplus dollars were not saved; they were spent by politicians (of both parties). The cupboard is bare.

Shouting Thomas said...So, Allie wants the Fed to meet with executives of the pharma industry to fix prices for drugs.

This will, she says, lower prices!

==============1. It has worked for all other advanced nations that have the same drugs cost 40-60% less than America, and still profitable enough to sell in quantity, with no shortages at 90% less than USA cost in 3rd world countries like India, China, the Dominican Republic, etc. - where, BTW, a lot of the drugs on market are actually manufactured.

2. Drugs have monopolistic elements to the industry. Where competition cannot exist, countries can and have negotiated profit margin limits. The US has an even bigger right to demand this because much of the basic research that is part of the drug development process is done in America, funded at government centers and universities by taxpayer and NGO grant funding.

(Similarly, in competing foreign nations, where salaries of doctors and other healthcare professionals are 30-70% less than in America, there is NO SHORTAGE of qualified people..The US, even with vastly higher pay, has a problem with generating an adequate internal supply of such workers and is constantly going overseas to find the people to plug the gaps in workforce. Too many American lawyers and financial people - not enough doctors and nurses..)

1. The GOP offers no real solutions or suggestions to solve any problems, only obstruction and support for lowering taxes on the wealthy and cutting social programs that effect a massive percentage of the American population.

Original Mike - You constantly act as if you, and you only, know how the Social Security program works, and as usual, you're wrong.

It is not "bare," broke or under water.

It, along with Medicare/Medicaid represents the most successful social programs in our nation's history.

It is solvent for decades, and with an improved economy it will be put back on firm footing forever.

Your comments are nothing more than the usual right wing trip we can all hear on a regular basis via the talking heads on Fox or spewed forth from the likes of Limbaugh, Beck and others who have absolutely no economic background whatsoever.

@Love, even the Washington Post admits that Social Security has gone negative, meaning that six years ahead of schedule it is paying out more than it is taking in.

That's a cold hard fact.

There is no hidden vault, no lock box brimming full of money that represents the surpluses that the Social Security payroll tax once rolled up. There are only IOUs from the U.S. Treasury that state that the Treasury will pay back what it "borrowed."

But the U.S. Treasury is itself in the hole, and borrowing heavily, so the Social Security shortfall will have to be made up by even more borrowing.

That's also a fact.

So far the only real response from the Obama administration has been to bar Avestin for women with breast cancer and try to convince men not to have their prostate checked. In other words, once we're old enough to collect from Social Security rather than pay in, we should all just go die.

As regard's Silver's article, once you dig beneath the pseudo-mathematical mumbo jumbo, it amounts to a desperate plea that the Republicans nominate Obama-Lite, I mean Mitt Romney, instead of somebody who will try to bring spending under control.

The notion that the recession that began under Bush and worsened under Obama will not go away until spending is brought under control is simply something that Silver cannot bring himself to contemplate.

There is no 'desperate plea' on the part of Silver for the GOP to nominate Romney. Silver is, for the most part, a Democrat. Any Democrat knows that Romney will be much tougher for Obama to beat than any one else in the GOP field. That is obvious to anyone paying attention.

If Silver wanted to desperately push any candidate he would choose any of the other clowns running.

@Matt, read it again. Notwithstanding anything he writes about Obama beating this person or that person under various assumptions about the end of the Great Recession in 2012, deep in his heart of hearts Silver knows that Obama is toast. His only hope is that enough Republicans vote for Romney so that the glorious welfare state can go on forever.

But the glorious welfare state is itself doomed. Contrary to anything you may have read, Matt, the US was not under-regulated in 2008 and certainly is over-regulated now (unless you think, perhaps, that regulations about spilled milk on Wisconsin dairy farms do not far enough). We need someone who gets it that regulations need to be cut by the pound, not merely tweaked and certainly not added to.

Mitt Romney is not that man. Or to be more precise about it, he has not made the case that he is that man.

Matt, the US was not under-regulated in 2008 and certainly is over-regulated now

Not according to Bloomberg via the OMB:

Obama’s White House approved 613 federal rules during the first 33 months of his term, 4.7 percent fewer than the 643 cleared by President George W. Bush’s administration in the same time frame, according to an Office of Management and Budget statistical database reviewed by Bloomberg. [...] Link

What is most interesting is you are assuming that Silver has some kind of sway with GOP voters, which is odd because not that many Republicans like or trust the NY Times.

Silver is simply reading the polling numbers and making conclusions a year out. But you don't have to be too smart to realize Romney is going to be the nominee. And, as I said, most Democrats are far more scared of Romney than any other GOP candidate [who is running] because all the other ones don't have a chance.

But if for some odd reason Cain or Newt won it all they would never be able to get Congress to go along with radical changes.

Obama is toast. People vote their pocketbooks, and their pocketbooks are empty. George Bush senior enjoyed 90%+ approvals after Desert Storm-- barely a year and a half later, he lost to a nobody governor from Arkansas (Arkansas?) because of a teeny-tiny recession.

Love, Matt, Allie, et al. have bought lock, stock, and barrel the fable that the recession will be over a year from now and everyone will love Obama again. This will not happen. Obama's policies, whether massive bailouts or incredibly expensive new entitlements, are perfectly designed to retard ecomomic growth in this country, in precisely the same way FDR's policies lengthened and deepened the Depression. Obama cannot help himself in piling costs on the producers and multiplying market uncertainties. In short, the economy will not recover. The economy cannot recover. The Republicans could nominate Peewee Herman and he would win going away.

Tyrone Slothrup said;Love, Matt, Allie, et al. have bought lock, stock, and barrel the fable that the recession will be over a year from now and everyone will love Obama again.

11/3/11 8:33 PM

Wrong, that is not what I think, it will take YEARS to end this recession if ever. Obama didn't cause it, Even Bush was not entirely at fault. Deregulation that allowed Wall Street to go hog wild caused it. Greed caused it.Even Bill Clinton is complicit when he signed Us China Relations Act of 2000.

This is my last note as I am official on the Committee to Re-Elect the POTUS starting Friday. We have ethics. OK?

Now, here is the going away present:

1. There is NO WAY GOP can win the White House, Senate, and House in 2012. They will lose it all.

2. First, WH: GOP will not allow Romney to be the nominee. So, thanks much. GOP will now not allow Cain or Palin or Bachmann to be the nominee. This leaves Perry, the many GOP wants. YES! We want him too for dinner next november. We win by your help in making sure Romney does not get the nod. And, we are grateful that Romney makes two decisions depending on the wind. We are just lucky.

3. Second, House: GOP is over-reaching. Pelosi will be back as Speaker. You have no idea how wrong GOP is doing in House administration. Staffers are not hired in most offices. You guys suck.

4. Third, Senate: GOP will lose more and we will have strength. Leader Reid is our fearless hero till 2016.

GOP: What does this mean?AP: You are a loser, as you have no vision, no deliverables, no diversity, etc.GOP: What then? What do we do now?AP: Nothing. But, you could consider moving to Saudi Arabia or London or Paris.GOP: How nice? May be, we will.

@Matt, sorry to be slow getting back to you, but on Thursday nights I don't miss Bones or Mentalist, either one.

I think that Silver really is trying to influence Republican voters, but he's doing so the same way you are -- by sowing FUD all over anyone who is to Romney's right. You do it with statements of certitude that you probably don't feel. Silver did it by trying to present a mathematical case based on meaningless polls and cooked statistics. You're both trying to do the same thing; he's just smarter than you are.

Romney may be the nominee, and if it's a choice between Romney and Obama this time next year then it's hold your nose and vote for Romney in the fond hopes he doesn't screw things up as badly as a 2nd term Obama would.

But I have higher hopes than that, and so should every other Republican. Tiny, incremental changes won't cut it at all. We need big changes in the current financial trajectory or the US is screwed.

"If it's the latter then I would point out that within the past 3 years I've been told by Democrats numerous times that Jesus would want us to pass major social programs. Why do they get a break, but the Reps. don't?"

That's an easy question to answer.

Every informed observer, Democrat and Republican alike, knows that any Democrats mouthing religious platitudes are insincere, opportunistic mountebanks pandering to voters whom they privately view as stump-toothed Bible clingers. Nobody but a fool takes them seriously. There hasn't been a real religious Left, outside of your local Jesuit seminary, since the days of William Jennings Bryan.

When a Republican says the same things, there's approximately a 60% chance they really mean it. Sarah Palin means it. Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich? Doubtful.

1. The GOP offers no real solutions or suggestions to solve any problems, only obstruction and support for lowering taxes on the wealthy and cutting social programs that effect a massive percentage of the American population.

2.Because Americans are smarter than the GOP thinks.

*Oh, and Social Security is not "broke."

Anybody who reads, opposed to listening to Fox and the radio wingers knows that.

And as for "who will buy those bonds"...the same people who have forever.

Interesting discussion--seems to me year in politics is an eternity--too much can happen for a prognosticator like Mr Silver to make definitive judgments. If he is this good at prognostication would love to have a look at his financial portfolio.

Too many wild cards out there both in the realm of foreign affairs (less important IMO) and in the national economy--no to mention a possible third party run by some one on the right or left.

Of course the willfully blind "law prof" still talks as if the Usurper could be lawfully elected. But how does a "law prof" vote for a clearly ineligible candidate? I guess that's the state of the "law". Doesn't she know about Minor v. Happersett ?

"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

Of course she is also willfully blind to Tim Stanley, owner of Justia.com, and Obama for America supporter scrubbing M v. H from at least 25 cases that cited it's citizenship holdings. For shame!

Every informed observer, Democrat and Republican alike, knows that any Democrats mouthing religious platitudes are insincere, opportunistic mountebanks pandering to voters whom they privately view as stump-toothed Bible clingers. Nobody but a fool takes them seriously. There hasn't been a real religious Left, outside of your local Jesuit seminary, since the days of William Jennings Bryan.

When a Republican says the same things, there's approximately a 60% chance they really mean it. Sarah Palin means it. Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich? Doubtful

The one nit here, is that I think that you malign Romney, when it is not called for. And, I suspect that part of that may be because of his Mormon religion. Everything that I have read has indicated the opposite, that he is devout, and has contributed significant time (and money - by actually tithing) to his local church.

Let me suggest however that a candidate who is really devout in his Judeo-Christian (-Mormon) religion is not going to tell the voting public what God (Jesus, etc.) would want the public, or other politicians, etc., to do. That sort of arrogance is just contrary to anyone who is truly devout.

So, you have a President Obama, telling us that God would want the Republicans to pass his further giveaways to his union supporters and the 1%, while appearing more likely to golf than to go to church on Sundays. And, you have Pelosi doing the same, a cafeteria Catholic, who has more than once been threatened with loss of Sacraments due to her public stand on abortion.

For them, religion is a means to an end, and that end is the power that comes from elected office. If they actually believed, and made that belief a center of their lives, as do many Americans, they would recognize their arrogance for daring to try to speak for their Creator.

Hi Roger. Yes, SS has some assets, specifically the new money coming in. However, it's no longer enough to cover 100%, and the demographics insure it's going to get worse. Not a complete bust, but insufficient funds.

The SS Trust Fund owns BOND A, which is pledged to the payment of SS benefits. In order to get their money, the SS Trust Fund sells Bond A to the Treasury. In order to get the money to buy BOND A, the Treasury sells BOND B.

Question: How does the existance of BOND A help in the payment of the SS benefits?

Seven Machos said... "Mick -- What about your secret plan? Is it starting yet? Time is short, my loony friend."

Already in the works. Can you refute Minor v. Happersett?

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."